good afternoon. we're keeping an eye on the justice department. any moment now, merrick garland set to announce a federal lawsuit against texas over the strict new abortion law. we're going to bring that announcement to you live as soon as it gets underway. we're also watching the white house where later this afternoon president biden will unveil his latest plan to stop the spread of the coronavirus as the delta variant continues to drive a surge in case as cross this country. he expected to announce a vaccine mandate for all federal employees and call on schools to set up regular testing programs. now short time ago, white house press secretary jen psaki talked about why the president is doing this now. >> we've seen over the past couple of months not only the threat of delta but the importance of taking additional bold and ambitious steps to get more people vaccinated. >> now this comes as a plane

with about 30 americans as well as other passengers became the first international flight to take off from kabul since the withdraw from afghanistan was completed ten days ago. now as the senate arms services committee says, it will hold a hearing on the withdraw process later this month featuring testimony from three of the nation's top military leaders. elsewhere on capitol hill, several house committees are putting together their portion of the $3.5 trillion reconciliation bill focusing on other priorities, education, childcare and fighting climate change. we're going to talk about that process and what comes next later this hour with michigan democratic congressman dan kildee. we begin with that imminent announcement from the justice department regarding the texas abortion law. joining me now, nbc news correspondent julia anzly, also joining me is civil rights attorney. great to have both of you with us. julie, excuse me, let me begin

with you. what more can you tell us about this lawsuit and in terms of the legal shape it may take? >> well, we understand that broadly it will be a civil lawsuit. they're not filing anything broadly. we can expect it to say something along the lines of the fact that texas can't give the authority that the government of texas doesn't have. in other words, it's not okay for texas lawmakers to empower its citizens to start suing anyone connected to an abortion procedure. and the government of texas doesn't have that authority in the first place. that's a probable route that we will see play out today. but it's really tricky, in fact, they're going to be showing a lot of legal maneuvering because of the way this law was written was really to be challenged proof. one way that would have been easiest to challenge this is for a lawsuit to actually play out for someone to take this new law in texas and actually sue someone connected to an abortion for over $10,000. and then the justice department

can say we don't think that is adequate. we don't think that person has standing in court. that would have been easier. but because so many of these providers shut down and that lawsuit hasn't existed yet, it's been very hard for the federal government to step in and say that this is infringing on rights when the rights have not been infringed upon. many of these clinics have shut down. abortion is banned in the state of texas and the justice department has been put in a position where it has to respond. and we're about to see what that response will be. >> this new law in texas was written in a way and legal experts have noted this that it relies on the public to enforce it. potentially making it more difficult for the federal government to challenge the legality. some say the state of texas does not and cannot give the authority of law enforcement to citizens fit doesn't have itself. what do you see as the greatest challenge for the justice department here? >> you know, the greatest challenge is that this was a

crafty legislation that was calculated to make sure that the supreme court would have the most power to decide whether or not a woman could get the right to have an abortion which is as we know is constitutionally protected. except in this case, we have another case coming from mississippi, but here's the point. women have not basically had the same degree of constitutional rights as men, period. this is like the fugitive slave act that said, you know, we will literally give up bounty for slave owners, to pay people to catch and return fugitive slaves. there is not really a difference here. the problem is that where the federal government -- >> all right. excuse me, i have to interrupt you. let's cross over and listen to merrick garland. >> good afternoon. last week after the supreme court allowed texas senate bill 8 to take effect, i said to the

justice department was evaluating all options to protect the constitutional rights of women and other persons. today after careful assessment of the facts and the law, the justice department has filed a lawsuit against the state of texas. our position is set out in detail in our complaint. it's basis is as follows. sb 8 bans nearly all abortions in the state after six weeks of pregnancy. before wum even know they are pregnant and months before a pregnancy is viable. it does so even in cases of rape, sexual abuse, or incest. and it further prohibits any effort to aid the doctors who provide previability abortions or the women who seek them. the act is clearly unconstitutional under long standing supreme court precedent. those precedents hold in the

words of planned parenthood versus casey that, "regardless of whether exceptions are made for particular circumstances, a state may not prohibit any woman from making the ultimate decision to terminate her pregnancy before viability." texas does not dispute that the statute violates supreme court precedent. instead, the statute includes an unprecedented scheme to and the chief justices words "insulate the state from responsibility." it does not rely on the state's executive branch to enforce the law as is the norm in texas and everywhere else. rather, the statute deputizes all private citizens without any showing of personal connection or injury to serve as bounty hunters. authorized to recover at least

$10,000 per claim from individuals who facilitate a woman's exercise of her constitutional rights. the obvious and expressly acknowledged intention of this statutory scheme is to prevent women from exercising their constitutional rights by thwarting judicial review for as long as possible. thus far, the law has had its intended effect. because this statute makes it too risky for an abortion clinic to stay open, abortion providers have ceased providing services. this leaves women in texas unable to exercise their constitutional rights and unable to obtain judicial review at the very moment they need it. this kind of scheme to nullify the constitution of the united states is one that all americans, whatever their

politics or party, should fear. if it prevails, it may become a model for action in other areas by other states and with respect to other constitutional rights and judicial precedents. nor need one think long or hard to realize the damage that would be done to our society if states were allowed to implement laws that empower any private individual to enfringe on another's constitutionally protected rights in this way. the united states has the authority and the responsibility to ensure that no state can deprive individuals of their constitutional rights through a legislative scheme specifically designed to prevent the vindication of those rights. the united states also brings a suit to assert other federal interests that sb-8

unconstitutionally impairs. among other things, sb-8 conflicts with federal law by prohibiting federal agencies from exercising their authorities and carrying out their responsibilities under federal laws relating to abortion services. it also subjects federal employees and nongovernmental partners who implement the laws to civil liability and penalties. among the federal agencies and programs whose operations the statute unconstitutionally restricts, are the labor department's job corps program, the defense department's try care health program, the office of refugee resettlement, the bureau of prisons, the centers for medicare and medicaid services and the office of personnel management. the complaint therefore seeks a judgement that sb-8 is invalid under the supremacy clause and the 14th amendment is preempted

by federal law and violates the doctrine of intergovernmental immunity. the united states also seeks a permanent and preliminary injunction prohibiting enforcement of the statute against the state of texas. including against the state's officers, employees and agents and private parties it has effectively deputize who would bring suit under sb-8. the department of justice has a duty to defend the constitution of the united states and to uphold the rule of law. today, we fulfill that duty by filing the lawsuit i have just described. now before i take some questions, i want to say a few words to the american people on the eve of the 20th anniversary of the attacks of september 11th, 2001. that day is seared into all of our memories.

nothing we can do or say can replace the loss so many endured that day. nothing change the profound way the events of september 11th altered us as a nation. and let there be no doubt the threat from terrorists, from foreign terrorists like those involved in the september 11th attack is one we must constantly guard against. but what we can do and what we have done is learn from the past to better anticipate and prepare for the next threat and to seek to disrupt it. as we mark this anniversary, we rededicate ourselves at the justice department to doing all we can to protect the american people from terrorism in all its forms. whether originating from abroad or at home and to doing so in a

manner that is consistent with our values and the rule of law. with that, i'm happy to take questions. >> attorney general garland, is there a provision in the texas law that you personally find especially concerning? >> i think i described all of the provision that's i find xerng. >> there are other states that said they would follow texas' lead do. you expect doj to be involved in similar actions against other states? would it be a leap to say this could be one of several similar actions? >> well, as i said in my remarks, the risk here, the greater risk here, the additional and further risk here is that other states will will follow similar models with

respect not only to this constitutional right but theoretically against any constitutional right. and in any other state. so if another state uses the same kind of provisions to deprive citizens of their constitutional rights and then in particular to deprive their citizens of the ability to seek immediate review, we will bring the same kind of lawsuit. >> so there have been pressure it seems from democratic lawmakers on the hill and anti-abortion groups and even some can argue from the white house on the department of justice to do something about this texas law. did you feel any of that pressure? is that any -- and did that play any role in this? >> the department of justice does not file lawsuits based on pressure. we careful evaluated the law and the facts. and this complaint expresses our view about the law and the facts. >> all right. thanks, everybody. >> thank you all.

>> you were just listening to attorney general merrick garland talking about the federal government's response to that texas abortion ban through legislation known as sb-8. and the lawsuit that will now be pursued and has been initiated by the federal government. the attorney general saying the purpose of that lawsuit was because the texas law denies the constitutional right to women who want to seek an abortion in the state of texas. states may not prohibit abortion before viability and merrick garland says that law explicitly does that. to break down the announcement we just heard, julie anzly and maya wiley. maia, i apologize for interrupting you before we heard from the attorney general. we were talking about what the legal basis for this lawsuit was going to be. we now have it.

evaluate that for ushgs the legal argument he made in terms of why the federal government is now pursuing this lawsuit against texas. >> i think he just heard merrick garland make the strongest and direct and frankly and logical argument you can make to say there is a constitutional right in this country for a woman to choose an abortion. this law is an explicit attempt to get around that constitutional provision and make it impossible for a woman to get to court to try to vindicate the constitutional right. because remember what texas did and this is why i was raising the fugitive slave law is say we'll tell private citizens we will pay you for doing -- for blocking a woman's constitutional right. but what that means is essentially in a state that said

no one will now give you an abortion because they're subject to being dragged into court and being forced to pay $10,000 means you essentially made it impossible for a woman to get there. and vindicate her rights. the problem we have here is the fact that the supreme court should have never let this law stand before it ruled whether or not it was constitutional. it should have had an injunction that this is the federal government saying we have a supremacy clause. we fought a civil war to make sure that states' rights don't mean you can trump constitutional rights of any resident or person. and that's what he's going directly for in this lawsuit. >> you gave me a lot to break down. to your point, he does also say, you know, it does not -- the texas law does empower bounty

hunters that make it too risky for clin toikz operate. how does this now play out just in the course of the next several weeks and months? will the federal lawsuit stop actual ban on abortion for the time being until this matter problem bhi i assume works its way through legal challenge after legal challenge? what is the immediate ramification of what we saw today by the attorney general? >> well, what we're going to see is how texas responds. right now texas has banned abortions because the supreme court of the united states said it's fine. we're going to let this roll even though it's a clear violation of the constitution. so what's happening now is the federal government is saying we want an injunction so this stops and this means that it will go through the courts. but unless the federal court says we agree with the justice department, we're going to join this, this law stands and women will have to leave the state to

get an abortion. >> julia, final question to you about the politics of all of this. just because it was raised to the attorney general towards the end which was the amount of pressure the administration came under to try and do something. the attorney general was saying they did not do this because of political pressure. the they did this because they looked at the law and the facts. the but there must have been growing concern among a host of political players and women's rights activists and health reproductive activists that were concerned about this. >> well, of course. lots of concern. lots of pressure. but if you remember who this attorney general is, someone who is nominated to the supreme court really spent his life on the federal bench and chosen by the administration to show a break from the previous administration that they had a justice department that was independent of the political pressure of the day. and so garland's response there was not surprising to me given who garland is.

he is someone who wants to look at the facts of the law and see how it could be legally challenged. but, of course, it's hard no to the think about what could have happened if mitch mcconnell had allowed his vote to go forward under the obama administration and him sitting on the supreme court now rather than three choices by the trump administration. one last thing i want to point out that was flagged by pete williams, there is a second thing they're pointing out here, a second violation in the law and that is because there is no exceptions for cases of rape, incest or sexual assault, it doesn't allow the federal government or employees to assist or reimburse or to try to step in to protect those victims as it normally would. so therefore, they're saying this actually again violates federal interests because the federal government would play a role there to protect, for example, a rape survivor. >> okay. the i fwes guess my final quests

going to be about the idea that federal agencies as well are not prohibits from being able to carry out specific functions within the state of texas. that was another part of the reason why the attorney general felt that this law in texas was going to undermine the constitution. is that also going to be a solid legal argument that can be made if the federal agency that's he highlighted there are unable to perform specific functions in the state? >> well, absolutely a solid legal argument and certainly true. the issue is ultimate think is going to go to the supreme court. we have a deeply ideological court that is julia mentioned, you know, frankly the republicans mitch mcconnell was going to ensure was going to be an anti-roe v. wade court. what we have seen is a highly

ideological court. so i would expect that if we're going to keep coming back to the fact that we're going to have to look at an equal rights amendment, we're going to have to look at everything that happened legislatively including the law that nancy pelosi is going to get passed on the women's health protection act. then we're going to have the same political problem that we always had which is the partisan divide and the republicans prevent people, particularly wum of color voting. this is democracy. i think merrick garland was absolutely right to call our attention to fact that if this stands this is a way people to get in the way of our constitutional rights in my m. ways. >> this law in texas should concern all american citizens because it nullifies the constitutional rights of states and it is dangerous. not just on abortion but on a whole host of issues. st maya wiley, thanks to the both of you for breaking that down for us. i appreciate your insights and

reporting. our other top story today, a plane carrying americans and other foreign nationals flies out of kabul for the very first time since the u.s. completed withdraw from afghanistan. we're live on the ground where the plane landed a short time ago. we're less than two hours away from president biden's major speech on the coronavirus. we have the new vaccine requirements for federal workers that will likely affect every state in the union. you're watching "ayman mohyeldin reports." union you're watching "ayman mohyeldin reports. (vo) unconventional thinking means we see things differently, so you can focus on what matters most. that's how we've become the leader in 5g. #1 in customer satisfaction. and a partner who includes 5g in every plan, so you get it all.

another day, another chance. make the most of it with the network that can deliver gig speeds to the most businesses. and get the advanced cybersecurity solutions you need with comcast business securityedge. ask how to get comcast business securityedge to help protect all your connected devices. and get started with a great offer on fast and reliable internet and voice for just $64.99 a month. plus, ask how to get a prepaid card up to $500. call or go online today to learn more. comcast business. powering possibilities. so many people are overweight now and asking themselves, "why can't i lose weight?" for most, the reason is insulin resistance, and they don't even know they have it. conventional starvation diets don't address insulin resistance. that's why they don't work. now there's release from golo. it naturally helps reverse insulin resistance,

stops sugar cravings, and releases stubborn fat, all while controlling stress and emotional eating. at last, a diet pill that actually works. go to golo.com to get yours. before we talk about tax-smart investing, what's new? ♪ -audrey's expecting... -twins! ♪♪ we'd be closer to the twins. change in plans. at fidelity, a change in plans is always part of the plan.

a short time ago a mane carrying over 100 people including less than 30 americans touched down after safely departing kabul's karzai airport. it is first commercial civilian flight out of afghanistan since the united states' withdraw on august 30th. joining us is raf sanchez in doha. and peter baker. and kimberly motley. she is an msnbc legal analyst. raf, what is the latest there on the ground and that journey for those afghans and americans and other internationals that made it from kabul to doha? >> yeah. two hours ago we watched some pretty tired but relieved people come down the steps from that plane on to the runway here in doha. they had a fairly extraordinary day.

they woke up in this kabul. they passed through an airport controlled by the taliban, threatened by isis and they're going to sleep tonight in the relative safety and security here in doha, qatar. there are about 113 people on that plane. the state department said just a couple minutes ago that it invited 30 u.s. citizens and legal permanent residents to be on the flight but not all of them made it. so given that we know there was somewhere in the ballpark of 100 american citizens trying to get out of afghanistan, that would imply there are still at least several dozen or so trying to get out. there were also canadians, ukrainians, germans and brits on that flight. it seemed luke a large number of the people onboard were canadian. we met one canadian man who was holding the hand of his 6-year-old daughter. he was very relieved to get her to safety. but his wife was not able to get on that flight. she crossed by land to pakistan.

and his hope is that their family will be reunited soon. the question now, is this scaleable? is this the first of many flights out of kabul? we are expecting another flight carrying internationals to leave tomorrow. but the question is will there be flights for afghans? will there be an option for those afghans who carry the siv visa who otherwise served alongside u.s. forces are at risk for them to get on a flight and get to safety. >> not to mention the afghan that's just want to get out, even those who may not have worked with the americans. peter, let me play for you some of what press secretary jen psaki said earlier today. watch this. >> we promised we would get american citizens out. we promised we would get legal permanent residents out. we promised we would get our afghan partners out and we promised we would press the taliban to get them out. that's exactly what we did. >> does this flight change the optics for the white house when it comes to how the president

has handle afghanistan? because there has been this split screen image that i'm sure the white house is aware of. those that are leaving today but also those journalists that have been lashed and abused by the taliban in afghanistan. >> yeah. look, this allows them to say they have not given up on the americans and the afghan allies left in afghanistan while the american troops are all gone. the military flights that were being, you know, launched out of kabul are over. they have not in fact given up on their efforts. now they don't have the same tools at their disposable. no diplomats in kabul and no american presence at all in the country. they can use qatar as intermediaries to facilitate these flights. you heard secretary blinken say the taliban is still not allowing those flights to take off. arguing there is some paperwork issues there. the that will be a test of whether or not the biden

administration is able to continue these flights when this will be a succession of further evacuations in effect in the weeks to come or whether this was a one time thing. there are, in fact, so many thousands of afghans who would like to leave and did work for the americans who didn't get out yet. it's a huge, huge, you know, number of people beyond the several dozen americans who were still there. >> kimberly, the associated press wrote this weekend that the number of americans in it afghanistan is actually being undercut by hundreds, by this administration. what are you hearing in terms of the number of americans being left in afghanistan? >> well, i'm also hearing that there are hundreds of americans that are left and i agree that i believe the number that's are being given by the state department are significantly far less than the actual numbers on the ground. i can say for myself i'm trying to help over half a dozen

americans that are still on the ground in afghanistan. and none of them have been contacted. in addition to that, there is multiple u.s. green card holders on the ground. there is a lot of siv approved people that are still in afghanistan that have not been contacted by the state department. and so while i think it's good that there what a flight that went tout day that had americans on it, that there are far more americans and green card holders that still remain in afghanistan who the administration for whatever reason is unaware of or is not counting in their number. >> all right. kimberly motley and peter baker and raf sanchez, we'll keep an eye on. this president biden set to deliver a speech later this afternoon outlining the administration's plans to refocus on containing the pandemic. we'll have breaking details on that plan coming up next, you're watching "ayman mohyeldin reports." u're watching "ayman mohyeldin reports. what happens when we welcome change?

we can make emergency medicine possible at 40,000 feet. instead of burning our past for power, we can harness the energy of the tiny electron. we can create new ways to connect. rethinking how we communicate to be more inclusive than ever. with app, cloud and anywhere workspace solutions, vmware helps companies navigate change. faster. vmware. welcome change. new customers get our best deals on all smartphones. that's right. but what if i'm already a customer? oh, no problem. hey, cam...? ah, same deal! yeah, it's kind of our thing. huh, that's a great deal... what if i'm new to at&t? cam, can you...? hey... but what about for existing customers? same deal. it's the same deal. is he ok? it's not complicated to open your possibilities. with at&t, everyone gets our best deals on every smartphone like a samsung galaxy z fold3 5g.

so in less than two hours from it now, president biden will hit the reset button on the strategy to get the pan dem iblg under control with highly anticipated comments from the white house. one of the top priorities vaccinating as many p workers as possible. now this afternoon the president will ask the labor department to require any employers with more than 100 workers to have a vaccine requirement and/or a testing requirement. he is also going to require

staff at health care facilities with medicare and medicaid to be 100% vaccinated. another top objective, keeping kids in the classroom safe. this afternoon the white house will call on all schools across the country to set up regular testing in their schools for both students and staff. joining me now with more on this, nbc news's monica alba at the white house and also natalie azar. she is, of course, an msnbc medical contributor. great to have both of you with us. monica, we have brand new details, i understand, about the president's plan. bring us up to speed. >> yeah. i want to go through the top lines from this with you guys. this is really significant. this is a big push from the white house. an administration that had been putting a couple of different government mandates in place for vaccinations. but today is going to be by far the most sweeping that we have seen. it is really because there is incredible concern over the rise of the delta variant and in

particular this is something where the federal government had been trying to explore how much power they had in terms of requiring this. the what is going to be new today is the president is signing an executive order that will mandate vaccines for all federal workers which is something we reported earlier in the day. but what we're now learning and able to report is that any company with more than 100 employees is also going to be subject to having some of these mandates for vaccineors submitting to rigorous testing. in addition to that, all health care facilities, so we're talking hospitals, anything that has to do with that will now also have to have all of their staff fully vaccinated. so all told this is going to affect about 100 million workers. so that is really about two-thirds of the entire workforce. so the white house is doing this through a couple different avenues. for instance, we know what federal workers will face if they don't get vaccinated. they're going to have about 75

days to get the shots if they don't do that, then they'll face disciplinary action and eventually could be terminated. the big question here is the enforcement of the other things when it comes to private buzzes and that sector. and there might be lawsuits coming. that's something the white house was asked about but they said they really feel this is a huge step they need to take because simply what is happening now is not working. the 80 million or so people in this country still unvaccinated more needs to be done. so that's the top line on that part of it. separately, we're getting a lot more information about what the president is going to be doing when it comes to schools. he's really going to encourage all staff, all teachers to be vaccinated and local leaders, he's the one who really wants them to push that message. the we've seen about 9 states do into so far. the president would like to see an increase. and he also wants to be sure that $10 billion that were set aside for hhs earlier this year

be used for more regular testing for students and staff in schools. in addition to that, something that really could apply to all of us, the president is going to announce a way to try to make at home tests cheaper and more available because right now so much of that surveillance we saw earlier is going to diminish. this is the six prongs you see. this the priorities for a president who just a couple months ago was trying to declare independence from the virus. warning that things could take a turn and really could change for worst. today we're in a very precarious place and that's why the president wants to take these aggressive new steps. >> so, doctor, to manica's point, did the white house get ahead of itself in early july with the attempt as monica was saying there for the president to declare for the country, for the country to declare itself safe from the pandemic.

>> the world looked different. that is before delta took hold. i you this we were all caught surprised by it. the numbers and the hospitalizations and cases and everything really did decline, you know, as a function of the vaccination in the spring. and so if it had not been for delta, i think we could still be on that trajectory for, you know, end in sight. i think this is, you know, fair warning to all of us and to the 50% or less than 50% of the country who still unvaccinated that after delta there will be another variant. and another variant and another variant. because we know that, you know, the unvaccinated pockets of the country are the breeding ground for the variants. >> doctor, is our testing adequate? even states like new york just, you know, anecdotally going back to school, taking our kids back to school, testing is taking five to seven days. i remember at the beginning of the pandemic we were saying that

is not good enough if you're trying to determine or contain an outbreak in schools. so will a robust testing system be enough to keep schools open, particularly when kids under 12 cannot get the shot? >> so let me answer this this way. testing is still not a substitute for mandating a vaccine for all who are eligible and certainly not a substitute for enforcing and mandating masks which we know will protect especially the vulnerable and the kids under the age of 12. having said that, no. the answer to the question is testing is not out of play for a number of different reasons. number one, we're seeing in many areas of the country where there are positivity rates are 20% or higher. that is way too high. that suggests that they are locally under testing. and to monica's point too about rapid tests, rapid tests can be very, very useful. they're actually someone who has as much virus as another person,

the pcr and the rapid test are accurate. the person has the same amount of virus. the issue is in a a test, a two rapid tests costs about $24. we can certainly do that. or if you're concerned about having been exposed. but that is not going to cut it for the vast majority of families in this country nor will it cut it for businesses and organization who's may not be automobile -- as an aside, the funding for all of this is also about the same. testing and diagnostics. i'm hopeful that they recognize this. but testing absolutely is part of it, ayman. again, it's no the a substitute for the two things we know work really wellen that is vaccinations and masking, especially for our schools. >> it is a costly undertaking if you're trying to test hundreds of students every day of the week. monica alba and natalie azar, thank you very much.

switching to capitol hill for a moment. authorities are taking no chances with security ahead of a planned rally in support of those arrested in connection with the january 6th riot. nbc news learned that u.s. capitol police plan to reinstall fencing ahead of the september 18th event and that department plans to have a robust president wednesday all officers working that day. this comes as the house ways and means committee and four other committees are now working to put together their portions of the $3.5 trillion reconciliation bill focusing on the infrastructure priorities such as education health care and fighting climate change. joining us to talk about this, michigan democratic congressman dan kildee who sits on the ways and means committee. great to you have back on the program. your colleague stephanie murphy of florida said that at the hearing that avs now she plans to vote no on the reconciliation bill. here's what she had to say about why she is taking that position. >> i don't know how much we're

spending, how much we're raising, how much -- how we're spending some of the money and how we're raising any of the money. i want to emphasize i don't blame the chairman or the committee for the current situation. we were given an artificial deadline by which to craft and lock up a big bill. i think the dead line is too rushed driven by politics rather than policy. we need more time to get this process right. >> your thoughts on that, congressman? what do you make of the comments? is this process of putting together the reconciliation bilk done too quickly as the congresswoman said? >> i mean we've been working on these legislative proposals, you know, since the beginning of the year. so i understand the perspective she brings. i disagree with it. we've had countless meetings to go through the details of this. and in fact i only have a couple minutes. i have to get off and go vote on the first piece of this legislation. suffice it to say this is legislation that -- that we all spent a great deal of time

working on. >> come woman murph you is not the only democrat concerned about the sues and xoech the bill. you have senators joe manchin saying he won't vote for a bull that costs $3.5 trillion and their votes will be key to getting this passed as you know. could we potentially see the prus tag go down and you would be willing to support a smaller bill if it is able to get past the senate? >> i'll support a bill that is the boldest common denominator between the work we will will produce here in the house and what the senate is able to do. doing nothing is not an option. going as big as we can knowing that needs of the american people are great and really important. so that's where i stand on this. >> let me ask you -- >> i have to vote here shortly. >> i do not want to get in the way of you carrying out your duty. so if you need to go, you just let me go. i totally understand. that let me see if i can get one more in. do you need to go? >> 30 seconds. >> okay. real quick. what do you think about september 18 snj people expected to gather at the capitol for a

rally. you talked openly about the suffering from post trau mat uk stress disorders as a result of january 6th. are you worried about september 18th? >> i think we have to take it very seriously. i know these people. they post, you know, on social media. they're dangerous. what is most dangerous is the silence of republican leadership. they should be calling them off. >> all right. congressman dan kildee, thank you so much for your time. we don't want to get in the way of democracy in action. amy klobuchar just revealed her battle with breast cancer. she said she was diagnosed with stage one breast cancer earlier this year and had a -- had a lumpectomy and radiation. the senator says she waited to get checked out because of the pandemic because hopes her story will prompt anyone putting off medical care to actually take action. >> get those screenings. go in, get a mammogram, get whatever health checkup that you should normally be getting because we know there are somber safety controls now in doctors' offices than at the beginning of this pandemic.

and the second is, you know, just be grateful for the people around you. it really puts things in perspective. >> and senator klobuchar says her treatment went well and she is not at a greater risk of developing cancer in the future. still ahead, the stories of 9/11 told by those who lived through that day. >> everything around me was on fire. the smoke and the fumes just started to take my breath away. i started to cough and choke. and then at that point i just believed my life was going to end at that point. believed my l end at that point. and mine's unlisted. try boost® high protein with 20 grams of protein for muscle health. versus 16 grams in ensure high protein. boost® high protein also has key nutrients for immune support. boost® high protein. if you're 55 and up, t- mobile has plans built just for you. boost® high protein also has key nutrients whether you need a single line or lines for family members, you'll get great value on america's most reliable 5g network. like 2 lines of unlimited for just $27.50 a line.

only at t-mobile. darrell's family uses gain flings now so their laundry smells more amazing than ever. isn't that the dog's towel? hey, me towel su towel. more gain scent plus oxi boost and febreze in every gain fling. people with moderate to severe psoriasis, or psoriatic arthritis, are rethinking the choices they make like the splash they create the way they exaggerate the surprises they initiate. otezla. it's a choice you can make. otezla is not an injection or a cream it's a pill that treats differently. for psoriasis, 75% clearer skin is achievable, with reduced redness, thickness, and scaliness of plaques. for psoriatic arthritis,

otezla is proven to reduce joint swelling, tenderness, and pain. and the otezla prescribing information has no requirement for routine lab monitoring. don't use if you're allergic to otezla. it may cause severe diarrhea, nausea, or vomiting. otezla is associated with an increased risk of depression. tell your doctor if you have a history of depression or suicidal thoughts or if these feelings develop. some people taking otezla reported weight loss. your doctor should monitor your weight and may stop treatment. upper respiratory tract infection and headache may occur. tell your doctor about your medicines and if you're pregnant or planning to be. otezla. show more of you. it's your home. and if and there's not or place like wayfair to make the kitchen sink, the entertainment center. however you make it,

make your next project like no other. most bladder leak pads were similar. until always discreet invented a pad that protects differently. with two rapiddry layers. for strong protection, that's always discreet. question your protection. try always discreet. this is how you become the best! [music: “you're the best” by joe esposito] [music: “you're the best” by joe esposito] [triumphantly yells] [ding] don't get mad.

get e*trade and take charge of your finances today. with saturday marking the 20th anniversary of the attacks on 9/1 1 a brand-new documentary presented called "memory box: echoes of 9/11" release. some shared their experiences. now 20 years later some of the same people returned to the booth to reflect on what they experienced that day and the years since. one of the directors of this very powerful and moving documentary, david, thank you so much for your time.

all of the witnesses who spoke with your team did so in a booth without a director or someone asking them questions. leaving it to themselves to share their own stories and experiences. a very powerful approach, if you will, to story telling. why was it important to you and your team to do it this way? >> it was done with the artist who created the first box back in 2002 had just invited people in and said, look, you're in control. shut the door, sit down, switch on, switch off and say whatever you want. so we felt we had to honor that. so that was the first thing. i think it was important we honored that pact she had done with the original people and if we were going to ask people to come back. we had to give them the same deal.

there was an interesting thing which we felt when we were making this which was that giving them control in the way that we did was kind of scary. i spent my life just asking people questions. and moving the narrative the way we as filmmakers think the narrative should go. this time it was up for them saying i wonder what they're going to say. in the end they were brilliant, they sat down and got into the swing of things and picked up almost where they left off. for a filmmaker that was challenging. you lost control but then you got something different and very fresh, very authentic. >> and very candid as well. one of the people who features in your film is a muslim woman who faced bigotry and unity with

her community. i want to play a part of what she had to say to our viewers. watch. >> i wanted to be part of the renewal of healing america, my faith. and so about ten years ago we proposed a community center, called the islamic community cultural center in lower manhattan, a beautiful place that would be for all. >> go somewhere else. >> but then people began to attack us. >> i think it's just to spit in our face. i think they're laughing at us. >> and it really hurt me when they said not you, not now, and not here. i started receiving hate letters after hate letters, but i also started receiving love letters.

and these letters always remind me to this day that there indeed are two americas. >> it was such a powerful moment in that documentary. and very eye opening. what was your reaction to what she had to say and what does it say about what's happened in the united states the last 20 years? >> she's amazing, isn't he? of course she had been in the original booth and had spoken of her concerns but also her optimism back in 2002 that what had happened was going to, in some sense, provide a better future, something for us all to look forward to. and the daisy kahn was measured, calm, delightful, charming but also, i think, quite angry and also genuinely disappointed

because there was somebody who really hoped this would bring america together and, of course, she had seen that. she had seen the way america gelled after 9/11. she had been in new york and been at ground zero and watched people of all colors, all ethnicities work together, so there was that real hurt. i think in a sense her testimony at that point in the film is so important because it draws attention to the very clear ideological divide that exists in america at the moment. not just in america, it happens in our country, too. and i felt that she was skewering the difference between what america was like if 2001 and what it's like now but also very much rooted in the idea it doesn't have to be like that. it doesn't have to be so divided.

>> david, thank you. this was an incredible documentary. it is an important part of our collective narrative. you can catch the encore presentations of "the memory box" saturday and sunday at 10:00 p.m. eastern on msnbc and stream it on peacock. make sure you stay with msnbc for special coverage marking 20 years since the 9/11 attacks. coverage starts tomorrow at 6:00 a.m. eastern with a special edition of "morning joe." then watch shows anchored from ground zero, the pentagon and shanksville, pennsylvania. i'll see you back here tomorrow at 3:00 eastern. "deadline white house" with nicolle wallace starts after this quick break. e starts after this quick break my dvt blood clot left me with questions... was another around the corner? or could i have a different game plan? i wanted to help protect myself. my doctor recommended eliquis. eliquis is proven to treat and help prevent another dvt or pe blood clot. almost 98 percent of patients on eliquis didn't experience another. and eliquis has significantly less major bleeding than the standard treatment. eliquis is fda-approved and has both.

don't stop eliquis unless your doctor tells you to. eliquis can cause serious and in rare cases fatal bleeding. don't take eliquis if you have an artificial heart valve or abnormal bleeding. if you had a spinal injection while on eliquis call your doctor right away if you have tingling, numbness, or muscle weakness. while taking eliquis, you may bruise more easily and it may take longer than usual for bleeding to stop. seek immediate medical care for sudden signs of bleeding, like unusual bruising. eliquis may increase your bleeding risk if you take certain medicines. tell your doctor about all planned medical or dental procedures. what's around the corner could be a different game. ask your doctor about eliquis. re-entering data that employees could enter themselves? that's why i get up in the morning! i have a secret method for remembering all my hr passwords. my boss doesn't remember approving my time off. let's just... find that email. the old way of doing business slows everyone down. with paycom, employees enter and manage their own hr data in one easy-to-use software.

visit paycom.com for a free demo. in business, it's never just another day. it's the big sale, or the big presentation. the day where everything goes right. or the one where nothing does. with comcast business you get the network that can deliver gig speeds to the most businesses and advanced cybersecurity to protect every device on it— all backed by a dedicated team, 24/7. every day in business is a big day. we'll keep you ready for what's next.

comcast business powering possibilities. what happens when we welcome change? we can transform our workforce overnight out of convenience, or necessity. we can explore uncharted waters, and not only make new discoveries, but get there faster, with better outcomes. with app, cloud and anywhere workspace solutions, vmware helps companies navigate change-- meeting them where they are, and getting them where they want to be.

faster. vmware. welcome change. hi there, everyone. it's 4:00 in new york. today's breaking news from the biden justice department, the first major legal action from the administration on the near total ban on abortion in texas which yesterday former head of planned parenthood on this program described as, quote, overturning roe v. wade in texas. attorney general merrick garland announcing a lawsuit against the state stressing the law clearly flies in the face of supreme court precedent guaranteeing women the right to make decisions about their own bodies before pregnancy is viable and that it is designed to subvert the u.s. constitution. watch. >> texas does not dispute that its statute violates supreme